Fetch current internet censorship risk for up to 50 countries in one call as a table, running one public GET per country.
sentinel_current_risk for up to 50 countries in one call, as a table. Runs one public GET per country.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country_codes | Yes | ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes (max 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and earns credit: 'public GET' signals no authentication is required, and 'one public GET per country' warns the agent that cost/rate scales linearly with input size. It does not cover error behavior or what happens if more than 50 codes are passed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the operational caveat placed second. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter batch tool with no output schema, the description supplies the output format ('as a table') and the cost model, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing only edge-case handling (e.g. invalid or over-limit codes).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format and the max-50 limit. The description only echoes the 'up to 50' bound, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource and scope ('sentinel_current_risk for up to 50 countries') and explicitly anchors itself to its single-country sibling, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema. The output form ('as a table') is also named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly frames the batch context ('up to 50 countries in one call'), which implies the alternative is the single-country sentinel_current_risk, and it discloses the cost model ('one public GET per country') that should drive the choice. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.